Conflict. Ch 12. "Globalization"
This chapter is about globalization and its effects on conflict. The author presents two opposing views of how globalization effects conflict. One side sees globalization as having a positive impact on conflict. This side claims that globalization increases cross-cutting relationships between states and has caused a drop in the number of international conflicts. The other side, however, argues that globalization causes an increase in the number of intranational conflicts due to several factors. Among these factors is a decrease in government spending on social programs. Marginilization of certain segments of society is also a major factor. Although globalization opens markets and promotes the flow of wealth into impoverished countries, it can also take a toll on local markets by introducing competition. The author discusses neo-liberal economic reforms and the impact of these reforms when they are forced upon a society. She addresses the idea that while these reforms may have a positive effect in the long-term, they can have damaging effects in the short-term that may lead to deeper issues for a nation. She then discusses transnational mobization which is a response to the insecurity and resentment felt by people of a nation as a result of globalization. Transnational movements can come from all sectors of society but have a similar goal of resisting globalization.
I thought this chapter was very interesting. I liked that the author presented both viewpoints of the globalization argument and made it clear why globalization is neither truly good nor truly bad. I thought it was interesting that she talked about globalization increasing cross-cutting ties(without using that terminology) which are important for maintaining stable relationships. Her talk of transnational movements reminded me of the idea of superordinate goals. Although these groups come from different areas of society, they all have a common goal to unite against. Unfortunately it seems like this could cause internal conflict because they are uniting against globalization which could be represented by their government or those who have benefitted from the process in their society. The main thing that I took from this chapter was that it is important to look at globalization as an important influence on the context of the situation. It may have positive and/or negative effects on conflict, but it will almost always have some effect. Therefore, it is vital to recognize it and take it into account in both analysis, negotiations, and post-negotiation work. It's similar to Hampson's claim in "What Makes Peace Settlements Stick?" when he argues that making a negotiation with the international community in mind can be a determining factor in the success or failure of an agreement.
Monday, March 30, 2009
March 24: Ethnicity and Intractable Conflict
Coleman: Ch 24, "Intractable Conflict" in Deutsch, et al. Handbook...
This chapter differentiated "intractable" from "tractable" conflict. The author suggests that intractable conflicts have similar characteristics related to their context, core issues, relations, processes, and outcomes. The author then gives five paradigms for looking at intractable conflict, each from different disciplines. He presents the paradigms in order from most to least influential currently in the field of conflict resolution. The paradigms are: 1. The Realist Paradigm, 2. The Human Relations Paradigm, 3. The Medical Paradigm, 4. The Postmodern Paradigm, 5. The Systems Paradigm. The author then gives a list of guidelines that should be followed for intervention in intractable conflicts. Lastly, the author discusses the need for training of interveners in intractable conflict. He also gives advice of what this training should address.
I found this chapter really interesting. I liked the authors description of intractable conflict and the characteristics he presented because it made the terminology clearer. In discussing outcomes, the author notes that, "...the links between trauma and intractability seem to lie in the degree of impairment of individuals and communities and, in particular, in the manner in which trauma is or is not addressed post-conflict." This reminded me of our discussion in class of the importance of post-negotiation work. Not only is it important to make sure a negotiation is followed by the parties and implemented correctly, it is also important to address aspects of the conflict and the parties that may have been affected by the intrinsic harmful characteristics of intractable conflict. When looking at the paradigms for conflict presented in this chapter, I found the Medical Paradigm especially interesting. This paradigm "pictures intractable social conflicts as pathological diseases... that can spread and afflict the system and that therefore need to be correctly diagnosed, treated and contained." This paradigm reminded me of the structural functionalist view in sociology, which views members of society as separate parts with distinct functions that work together to form a larger whole organism. When a part of society does not function as it should, it has an effect on the society as a whole. I think it's interesting to look at conflict from this viewpoint because it places a strong emphasis on "diagnosis" or analysis. In medicine, doctors follow-up with their patients to make sure treatment is working correctly and to possibly change treatment. Therefore, I would argue that this paradigm places a strong emphasis on post-negotiation work. In these ways, I think this paradigm is extremely useful for looking at intractable conflict.
This chapter differentiated "intractable" from "tractable" conflict. The author suggests that intractable conflicts have similar characteristics related to their context, core issues, relations, processes, and outcomes. The author then gives five paradigms for looking at intractable conflict, each from different disciplines. He presents the paradigms in order from most to least influential currently in the field of conflict resolution. The paradigms are: 1. The Realist Paradigm, 2. The Human Relations Paradigm, 3. The Medical Paradigm, 4. The Postmodern Paradigm, 5. The Systems Paradigm. The author then gives a list of guidelines that should be followed for intervention in intractable conflicts. Lastly, the author discusses the need for training of interveners in intractable conflict. He also gives advice of what this training should address.
I found this chapter really interesting. I liked the authors description of intractable conflict and the characteristics he presented because it made the terminology clearer. In discussing outcomes, the author notes that, "...the links between trauma and intractability seem to lie in the degree of impairment of individuals and communities and, in particular, in the manner in which trauma is or is not addressed post-conflict." This reminded me of our discussion in class of the importance of post-negotiation work. Not only is it important to make sure a negotiation is followed by the parties and implemented correctly, it is also important to address aspects of the conflict and the parties that may have been affected by the intrinsic harmful characteristics of intractable conflict. When looking at the paradigms for conflict presented in this chapter, I found the Medical Paradigm especially interesting. This paradigm "pictures intractable social conflicts as pathological diseases... that can spread and afflict the system and that therefore need to be correctly diagnosed, treated and contained." This paradigm reminded me of the structural functionalist view in sociology, which views members of society as separate parts with distinct functions that work together to form a larger whole organism. When a part of society does not function as it should, it has an effect on the society as a whole. I think it's interesting to look at conflict from this viewpoint because it places a strong emphasis on "diagnosis" or analysis. In medicine, doctors follow-up with their patients to make sure treatment is working correctly and to possibly change treatment. Therefore, I would argue that this paradigm places a strong emphasis on post-negotiation work. In these ways, I think this paradigm is extremely useful for looking at intractable conflict.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
March 19: Carrying Out Agreements
Hampson: Nurturing Peace. Ch 1. "What makes peace settlements stick?"
In this chapter, Hampson talks about the problems that can arise in the post-negotiation phase of conflict resolution. The author gives 5 different examples of cases in which settlements have failed or succeeded. Along with a brief analysis of these cases, the author brings up the question of what success or failure means. Due to the long-term nature of post-negotiation work, it is difficult to analyze when a peace settlement has worked and when it has failed. It is also hard to have strict criteria for judging these factors even if a time period is decided on. Hampson gives us a list by Hoisti of the "prerequisites for peace" that we can use to judge peace settlements by:
1. the provision of a system of governance that embodies certain norms of what constitutes acceptable behavior;
2. legitimacy, based on shared principles of justice that are incorporated into the peace settlement;
3. assimilation, which demonstrates 'that the gains of living within the system ... outweigh the potential advantages of seeking to destroy or dominate it';
4. a deterrent system powerful enough to prevent defections;
5. conflict-resolving procedures and institutions that "include procedures and institutions for identifying, monitoring, managing, and resolving major conflicts between members of the system," including the capacity 'to impose settlement terms where continuation of a conflict poses a threat to the system as a whole';
6. consensus on war, that is, the recognition that war is a fundamental problem so that the design of new orders develops and fosters explicit norms against the use of force;
7. procedures for peaceful change, including 'methods and procedures for reviewing settlement terms, for raising grievances, in general for adjusting commitments and responsibilities to new social, economic, demographic, and diplomatic conditions'; and
8. anticipation of future issues, that is, a system for anticipating issues that are potential sources of new conflict and for monitoring and handling them before they erupt into violence
Hampson also argues that it is important to keep in mind the environment in which a conflict takes place (i.e. other countries) when negotiating an agreement. Even if the peace agreement works for the parties involved, if outside parties do not agree or are affected negatively, the agreement may not be successful.
I thought this chapter was a good introduction to understanding the post-negotiation phase of conflict resolution. I like the list that Hampson gave for analyzing peace settlements because it is seems like it could be extremely helpful in trying to figure out why settlements don't work. I also found Hampson's warning to keep in mind other nations in negotiations to be eye-opening. It seems like it would be obvious that third parties need to think about how outside parties are affected by settlements, but it might be hard for them to do this in a lot of cases. In negotiations where coming to an agreement between two parties is nearly impossible, it would be difficult to add even more parties into consideration. However, I think this is vital, especially in the modern world, for making successful settlements. After reading this chapter, I realized how deep third parties must delve into the issues in order to find a working settlement. There is so much research that could be done to help make negotiation more successful in the world; it's exciting to think of how much opportunity there is for making conflict a less violent process and for expanding the use of negotiation in conflicts that are violent.
In this chapter, Hampson talks about the problems that can arise in the post-negotiation phase of conflict resolution. The author gives 5 different examples of cases in which settlements have failed or succeeded. Along with a brief analysis of these cases, the author brings up the question of what success or failure means. Due to the long-term nature of post-negotiation work, it is difficult to analyze when a peace settlement has worked and when it has failed. It is also hard to have strict criteria for judging these factors even if a time period is decided on. Hampson gives us a list by Hoisti of the "prerequisites for peace" that we can use to judge peace settlements by:
1. the provision of a system of governance that embodies certain norms of what constitutes acceptable behavior;
2. legitimacy, based on shared principles of justice that are incorporated into the peace settlement;
3. assimilation, which demonstrates 'that the gains of living within the system ... outweigh the potential advantages of seeking to destroy or dominate it';
4. a deterrent system powerful enough to prevent defections;
5. conflict-resolving procedures and institutions that "include procedures and institutions for identifying, monitoring, managing, and resolving major conflicts between members of the system," including the capacity 'to impose settlement terms where continuation of a conflict poses a threat to the system as a whole';
6. consensus on war, that is, the recognition that war is a fundamental problem so that the design of new orders develops and fosters explicit norms against the use of force;
7. procedures for peaceful change, including 'methods and procedures for reviewing settlement terms, for raising grievances, in general for adjusting commitments and responsibilities to new social, economic, demographic, and diplomatic conditions'; and
8. anticipation of future issues, that is, a system for anticipating issues that are potential sources of new conflict and for monitoring and handling them before they erupt into violence
Hampson also argues that it is important to keep in mind the environment in which a conflict takes place (i.e. other countries) when negotiating an agreement. Even if the peace agreement works for the parties involved, if outside parties do not agree or are affected negatively, the agreement may not be successful.
I thought this chapter was a good introduction to understanding the post-negotiation phase of conflict resolution. I like the list that Hampson gave for analyzing peace settlements because it is seems like it could be extremely helpful in trying to figure out why settlements don't work. I also found Hampson's warning to keep in mind other nations in negotiations to be eye-opening. It seems like it would be obvious that third parties need to think about how outside parties are affected by settlements, but it might be hard for them to do this in a lot of cases. In negotiations where coming to an agreement between two parties is nearly impossible, it would be difficult to add even more parties into consideration. However, I think this is vital, especially in the modern world, for making successful settlements. After reading this chapter, I realized how deep third parties must delve into the issues in order to find a working settlement. There is so much research that could be done to help make negotiation more successful in the world; it's exciting to think of how much opportunity there is for making conflict a less violent process and for expanding the use of negotiation in conflicts that are violent.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
March 5: Tactics and Strategies
Carpenter and Kennedy. Managing Public Disputes. Ch. 10 "The Human Side"
This chapter focused on what the authors call "the human side" of negotiation. It brought up dilemmas that might be seen in negotiations due to what certain people bring to the table. For example, the authors talked about the problems that can be caused by differing levels of negotiating experience among the participants. There was a section in this chapter that talked about keeping participants at the table. There are several reasons why participants may want to leave negotiations, but the authors introduced methods of keeping everyone involved. For example, if participants feel that the process is going too slow, interveners can use the group to try to demonstrate the progress that the group has made and the importance of taking time in negotiating.
I really enjoyed this chapter because I thought it addressed a lot of difficult issues that might arise in negotiations. It gave a lot of guidance for how to deal with difficult people and how to convince people of the viability and importance of the process. This chapter reminded me of the article from the Boston Globe about pro-life and pro-choice representatives meeting together because it talked about finding out what words should be avoided during negotiations. In the article, the pro-choice group was offended by the word "murder" when talking about abortion. In this chapter, mobile home owners were offended by the use of the word "trailer" when talking about their homes. I think this chapter is a vital part of learning how to navigate through a negotiation process. Knowing all of the conflict theories and methodology for intervention is almost useless if the intervener fails to understand and address the human side of the conflict or dispute.
This chapter focused on what the authors call "the human side" of negotiation. It brought up dilemmas that might be seen in negotiations due to what certain people bring to the table. For example, the authors talked about the problems that can be caused by differing levels of negotiating experience among the participants. There was a section in this chapter that talked about keeping participants at the table. There are several reasons why participants may want to leave negotiations, but the authors introduced methods of keeping everyone involved. For example, if participants feel that the process is going too slow, interveners can use the group to try to demonstrate the progress that the group has made and the importance of taking time in negotiating.
I really enjoyed this chapter because I thought it addressed a lot of difficult issues that might arise in negotiations. It gave a lot of guidance for how to deal with difficult people and how to convince people of the viability and importance of the process. This chapter reminded me of the article from the Boston Globe about pro-life and pro-choice representatives meeting together because it talked about finding out what words should be avoided during negotiations. In the article, the pro-choice group was offended by the word "murder" when talking about abortion. In this chapter, mobile home owners were offended by the use of the word "trailer" when talking about their homes. I think this chapter is a vital part of learning how to navigate through a negotiation process. Knowing all of the conflict theories and methodology for intervention is almost useless if the intervener fails to understand and address the human side of the conflict or dispute.
Monday, March 2, 2009
March 3: Negotiation
Conflict: Chapter 14
This chapter focused on different forms and theories of negotiation and discussed its variability due to its wide variety of contexts. Several conceptual frameworks were introduced: Game and decision theory, Social-psychological approaches, Negotiating in organizations, and Negotiation as diplomatic politics. The author focuses on the importance and applicabilty of empirical research done by social scientists. The author also gives a framework of the influences in and processes of negotiation. The topics included in this framework are: Preconditions, Process, Outcomes, Implementation, Conditions, and Background factors. Using the research on negotiation that has been completed and the framework provided, it is easier to design strategies for negotiation that have better chances of success.
Since I am interested in doing research, I thought this chapter was interesting. However, I also found it hard to follow in some areas. I think this is because the different conceptual frameworks seemed to overlap so much in my mind. Since negotiation can be seen at different levels, it is hard to view it from only one. For example, it seems difficult to me to look at the interactions that occur between individuals involved in negotiation without considering the social structure that they act within.
Guelke, Adrian. "Negotiations and Peace" (Darcy and Mac Ginty. 2008. Contemporary Peacemaking 2nd ed. Pg 63-77)
This article addresses peacemaking and negotiations and talks about the success of each in different situations. The article goes on to talk about 7 steps that are present in any negotiation of a violent conflict: 1. Pre-talks, 2. Secret talks, 3. Multi-lateral talks, 4. Negotiating to a settlement, 5. Gaining endorsement, 6. Implementing provisions, and 7. Institutionalization. Although every conflict has different peculiarities, these 7 steps represent a general pattern that negotiations follow. The author addresses how negotiation can go wrong in different phases. He also talks about the possible reasons some negotiations do not work in regards to the steps he provides. For example, he argues that if there isn't a high chance of unacceptable levels of violence returning if a settlement is not reached in negotiations, parties often will not come up with a settlement.
I found this article a little hard to read, but I also found it helpful for analyzing violent conflict on a large scale. It was intimidating to recognize all of the places where negotiations may go wrong or fail to reach the next level. Looking at negotiation from this perspective makes me realize how time-consuming this process can be. I thought it was interesting that the process goes through institutionalization because most people probably think of negotiation ending at step 4. This shows the importance of maintaining the relationship between parties even after they leave the table; it also shows the possible importance of bringing officials back to the table to regroup and analyze the progress (if any) that has been made. The author addresses the idea of changing norms in society. It would make sense that a society that is going through negotiation could have swift social change. Therefore, it may be necessary to reorganize and readdress concerns and agreements after they have been made to make sure that the settlement is still applicable.
This chapter focused on different forms and theories of negotiation and discussed its variability due to its wide variety of contexts. Several conceptual frameworks were introduced: Game and decision theory, Social-psychological approaches, Negotiating in organizations, and Negotiation as diplomatic politics. The author focuses on the importance and applicabilty of empirical research done by social scientists. The author also gives a framework of the influences in and processes of negotiation. The topics included in this framework are: Preconditions, Process, Outcomes, Implementation, Conditions, and Background factors. Using the research on negotiation that has been completed and the framework provided, it is easier to design strategies for negotiation that have better chances of success.
Since I am interested in doing research, I thought this chapter was interesting. However, I also found it hard to follow in some areas. I think this is because the different conceptual frameworks seemed to overlap so much in my mind. Since negotiation can be seen at different levels, it is hard to view it from only one. For example, it seems difficult to me to look at the interactions that occur between individuals involved in negotiation without considering the social structure that they act within.
Guelke, Adrian. "Negotiations and Peace" (Darcy and Mac Ginty. 2008. Contemporary Peacemaking 2nd ed. Pg 63-77)
This article addresses peacemaking and negotiations and talks about the success of each in different situations. The article goes on to talk about 7 steps that are present in any negotiation of a violent conflict: 1. Pre-talks, 2. Secret talks, 3. Multi-lateral talks, 4. Negotiating to a settlement, 5. Gaining endorsement, 6. Implementing provisions, and 7. Institutionalization. Although every conflict has different peculiarities, these 7 steps represent a general pattern that negotiations follow. The author addresses how negotiation can go wrong in different phases. He also talks about the possible reasons some negotiations do not work in regards to the steps he provides. For example, he argues that if there isn't a high chance of unacceptable levels of violence returning if a settlement is not reached in negotiations, parties often will not come up with a settlement.
I found this article a little hard to read, but I also found it helpful for analyzing violent conflict on a large scale. It was intimidating to recognize all of the places where negotiations may go wrong or fail to reach the next level. Looking at negotiation from this perspective makes me realize how time-consuming this process can be. I thought it was interesting that the process goes through institutionalization because most people probably think of negotiation ending at step 4. This shows the importance of maintaining the relationship between parties even after they leave the table; it also shows the possible importance of bringing officials back to the table to regroup and analyze the progress (if any) that has been made. The author addresses the idea of changing norms in society. It would make sense that a society that is going through negotiation could have swift social change. Therefore, it may be necessary to reorganize and readdress concerns and agreements after they have been made to make sure that the settlement is still applicable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)