Negotiating - theory and practicePosted by Mikkel Gudsøe Sunday, November 25 2007 16:48:11Dear Readers,
I would like to draw your attention to the website www.mediationworld.net - a concept created and managed by Conflict Management International, based in London (www.cmi-consulting.com).
From this unique online platform your will by now already find comprehensive information on mediation worldwide.
My hope is that everybody being interested and/or working within the field of mediation and dispute resolution will attend MediationWorld.net on a frequent basis and see and help to that the site continues to grow.
The initiative is great, the potential is enormous - I look forward following the development contributing whenever relevant and I invite others to do the same.
Mediation helps Parties resolve disputes and hopefully reach Agreement - MediationWorld.net dissolves global informational and professional barriers on the subject and truly reaches its goal!
Best regards
Mikkel Gudsøe
Negotiating - theory and practicePosted by Mikkel Gudsøe Sunday, November 25 2007 11:10:09This is the last part of the abstract from the Thesis written by Stephan Christophersen.
Please enjoy.
Best regards
Mikkel Gudsøe
Application of the different roles:
The mediator has several approaches to choose from. He can choose to be highly involved in the outcome, even proposing specific solutions to the conflict. This approach will be helpful in situations where the parties to the conflict rely on a strong mediator, or when the parties have a really hard time finding possible solutions. A directive mediator who can see benefits from the parties’ cooperation and from a possible settlement – and the risks of not getting a settlement – can relay these to the parties. The more he uses this directive approach, the more powerful his suggestions would seem. This is especially so if the mediator has the capacity to make these benefits or risks come to pass himself, e.g. if the mediator is a government trying to settle the conflict. Economic incentives or sanctions can be allured to in the course of mediation in order to get the parties to make concessions, reach agreements on certain matters, or otherwise participate in the process.
The facilitative mediation approach to the conflict, which is closer to facilitation on the continuum of third party involvement, is useful to maximize the involvement of the parties in the peaceful outcome. This is beneficial when the goal is to get the parties oriented towards each other, to find solutions together, because the mediator’s role is more focused on the process of getting the parties to come up with the result rather than the mediator. It is a good way to get the parties to enter into a dialogue with each other.
When the hostility between the parties is great, it is probably a sign that there are underlying issues that need to be dealt with, like the parties’ views of each other. The transformative method of mediation will assist the mediator in changing the interaction of the parties from being fueled by perceptions of enmity to recognizing the legitimacy and humanity of the other side. This, too, will further the communication between the parties and their willingness to work with one another in the process. This method, then, is able to assist the mediator in keeping the dialogue between the parties going. And through empowerment – where both parties experience the ability and status to make a decision based on a free choice – the power balance is equalized which, in turn, will provide for a more even-handed dialogue. The use of empowerment of the parties, then, can prove especially beneficial in situations where one of the parties may feel that it is the underdog.
Facilitation is a good way to get the conflicting parties together to engage in a dialogue about the conflict. It provides them with the opportunity to sort out the issues of dispute themselves, and is, therefore, efficient if the relationship between the parties needs to be strengthened. The third party should not consider the purely facilitative role when he has a stake in the outcome or plays a part of the decision-making process (1). This would impair his ability to be neutral, and the parties could doubt his impartiality. This could back-fire on the process. On the other hand, if the third party indeed is neutral, and the parties do not have any reason to question his impartiality, the foundation for using the facilitative approach is in place.
One benefit from using a facilitator is that the parties have to engage in constructive dialogue. Herein lies the promise of a future where they will be able to carry on the mind-set of constructive cooperation. When they themselves are responsible for the outcome, they may have a stronger sense of duty to implement what was agreed.
If they reach an impasse and cannot get around it, one way for the facilitator to help could be to change roles for a time, e.g. by stepping into the role of a third party who is more involved in the conflict than a normal facilitator (2). This could be done by taking upon himself the task of a mediator, for example by presenting to the parties drafts of agreements that they would have to respond to.
Conciliation is an approach that can be used in many different circumstances. If the parties are not able or willing to meet, shuttle diplomacy can help them to reach an agreement, anyway. Another facet of shuttle diplomacy is that it can also keep the process going, even if the parties have given up or just stopped talking together. This way, the conciliator is not focused on the actual resolution of the conflict, but his focus is on keeping the process alive.
Conciliation can be used to bring the parties together, but it can also be used as a tactic by the third party to put pressure on each side in separate meetings to make them ready to concede. This would fit best with a mediator who is willing to use both threats and promises. But a facilitative approach fits better with a more gentle persuasion of seemingly irreconcilable parties when they need to sit together and talk. This approach, together with an underlying theme of reconciliation, should be the first one to be tried by the third party when the two contending parties do not want to meet and cannot resolve the conflict alone.
Conciliation, therefore, is an approach that can be combined with all of the other roles.
The parties may need some reconciliation to get to the negotiating table in the first place. But also along the way, it can be very helpful for the third party to employ certain methods that will lead to reconciliation on parts of the problem. After the resolution of the conflict, there is still a need for true reconciliation which will take the parties into a peaceful coexistence in the future in respect for the other’s humanity. It is the job for the third party to be familiar with the conflict and the issues to such a degree that he will have an intimate knowledge of the various points of contention. He must also know the reasons for the contentious points. This knowledge will make him able to address them in the way that will best lead to an understanding between the parties and a recognition of the other party’s right to have a different point of view.
So, reconciliation is not just for some conflicts – even though there may be a greater need for reconciliation in protracted conflicts that deal with issues of national identity, cultural ethos and security. It must be employed in all conflicts where it seems probable – or even possible – that the conflict will erupt again after the resolution process has successfully ended if certain deep-seated issues are not taken care of.
The best approach for a third party would then be to be aware of these kinds of issues from the beginning of the intervention, all through it, and consider if the parties will need reconciliation after the resolution of the conflict.
One way to look at it would be to view conflicts as the contentious issues between the parties including the underlying reasons for them, and to view conflict resolution as the total dissolution of those issues, including their underlying reasons. This way, by broadening the concept of conflict resolution, reconciliation would be a natural part of any attempt to resolve a conflict. The resolution would be more complete and produce long-lasting settlements of the disputes that all sides to the conflict, which includes every important voice on the different sides, would be able to embrace and carry out, even into the future.
International Conflicts:
There may be a need to look at intervention in international settings where the conflict is of a political nature, as a topic of its own. Of course, many of the characteristics mentioned above are still applicable; however there may still be some differences. In the following, I will look at a few of these relevant to this topic.
First of all, it should be said that the role of the intervener can change from setting to setting (3). In international interventions, the third party often has its own interests that it wants to serve. This role is often played by the government of a nation (4). This nation can have relationships with one or both parties to the conflict. Moreover, it can even have a direct stake in the outcome of the conflict (5). Such interests will often be the reason for it to intervene. To the party with whom it has the best relations it can seem like an advantage to have a “friend” as a third party, whereas the other party may want this third party to intervene because it, in its capacity of a friend, can put pressure on the other party.
The fact that the outcome of the conflict is important to a nation can also be a reason for the parties themselves to choose to approach that nation. The connection to one or more of the contending groups, the region in which the conflict takes place, or other interests that could be affected by the conflict, would serve as a strong impetus to that nation to resolve the conflict and achieve peace in the region.
These factors make for a different kind of intervention, since the third party already has interests at stake. It is often a highly involved and interested party. So, this kind of third party may not be neutral when it comes to the outcome of the conflict. It may not even be impartial, since one of the contending parties may take a position closer to the wishes of the intervener or it may even have a closer relationship with one of the contending parties (6). In this way, international intervention can become “three-cornered bargaining in a very real sense" (7), and coalitions or strategic alliances might even form. There is no requirement that the third party is subtle and indirect. Only the demands of effectiveness set limits for the degree of direct involvement (8).
Because the contending parties will not be unaware of the third party’s own interests – since these cannot be well hidden in an open world like the one of today – they may even want to choose a third party whose interests will guide its involvement in such a way that they will form a basis for the agreement between the parties.
So, the third party in the international, political - as opposed to private, corporate - conflicts may not live up to the standards normally accredited to third party intervention in conflicts.
1) Roger Schwartz, “The Skilled Facilitator”, p. 45.
2) Roger Schwartz, “The Skilled Facilitator”, p. 56.
3) William P. Smith in “Negotiation Theory and Practice”, pp. 411-412.
4) It can also be played by an organization, private or public, the UN, or by individuals. Even though I focus on the roles of governments in the following, many of these principles are not reserved for governments and should also be used by others. The pronoun used for a third party will be masculine, like “he”, “his”, or “him”, which also implies that real people are involved in the intervention, acting on behalf of governmental entities.
5) William P. Smith in “Negotiation Theory and Practice”, pp. 420-421.
6) I. William Zartmann in “International Negotiation”, p. 349.
7) William P. Smith in “Negotiation Theory and Practice”, p. 423.
8) Zartman and Berman, “The Practical Negotiator”, p. 78.
Negotiating - theory and practicePosted by Mikkel Gudsøe Sunday, November 11 2007 18:45:42Mediation:
The general goal of the mediation process is to assist the conflicting parties in negotiating a viable solution to the dispute. In order to help the parties negotiate and achieve this goal, the mediator needs to get to the core of the dispute, which is each side’s underlying interests, concerns, desires, fears, and aspirations, and help the parties meet these interests 1). There are several approaches that the mediator can rely on. The choice of approach will often depend on the parties’ wishes, the matter at hand, and the personality and personal style of the mediator. Leonard L. Riskin sets out two different approaches to mediation. He distinguishes between the directive and the facilitative mediator 2). Both of these types of mediators can have a broad or a narrow definition of the problem.
The directive mediator listens to the conflicting parties, asks questions to know more about the matters at hand and the parties’ interests and wants, and makes a qualitative evaluation of the case. It can be based on law or just the non-legal issues that he has been made aware of. He then tries to turn the parties’ attention to the outcome that, in his opinion, best serves the parties. He does this either by cunningly persuading them or by laying out on the table the way he sees the issues and the best available outcome.
The facilitative mediator lets the parties decide what outcome they should work towards. To help them find this solution, he will ask them a lot of questions to get deep into their underlying interests and aspirations. This will help him to get the parties to see for themselves the best solution to their problems, thus enabling them to choose that solution themselves. He will not tell them his own opinion about the best outcome. The facilitative approach compares better with the general view of the mediator that suggests that he should not interfere with the solution to the problem; that only the parties can decide how the conflict should be resolved. Here, the mediator does not suggest a solution, unless asked to do so by the parties. What this kind of mediator is most concerned with is the process of getting the parties to make the decision themselves. He focuses on the parties as persons and on the process that leads to a result.
The difference between the facilitative and the directive mediator, then, lies mostly in the intensity of involvement in the outcome of the conflict, but the focus of each approach rests chiefly on the outcome.
If the mediator takes on a broad definition of the problem, he sees the different issues of the conflict in the light of the surrounding circumstances and the impact that the different outcomes would have on those circumstances. So, he is also concerned with the broader scope and not only the two parties. The conflict – and the resolution of it – may have an impact on other people and other issues of importance. In a divorce-mediation it may be the children. In an international mediation it may be countries surrounding the contending parties, regional interests, or the international community as a whole. The mediator will then work with the parties in light of these circumstances. The problem at hand is defined as involving more than just the parties.
The narrow problem definition is used when the mediator’s focus is only directed towards the parties in the conflict and their interests and not so much towards the surrounding issues. These other issues do not have a substantial impact on the way the conflict is resolved or on the outcome itself. The problem is defined as involving only the parties.
Another view of mediation, the transformative approach 3), suggests producing recognition and empowerment of the parties. Recognition refers to the fact that the other party to the conflict also is human and deserves to be listened to, which, in turn, can provide a new understanding for the listening party. Communication becomes more efficient now, as well as in future potential conflicts, where the parties’ ability to resolve their own conflicts have, supposedly, been transformed into a higher degree of efficiency. Empowerment has to do with the freedom of the parties to settle the matter without being bound by outside authorities and the responsibility to find a solution that lies within their own power to effectuate 4). According to this approach, the mediator does not need to push for an agreement, since the parties are empowered to do so themselves. The achievement of a solution is not the goal of this approach. If the parties choose not to resolve the conflict, that is also their right as free entities. Therefore, impartiality becomes a must for the mediator. He must be visibly even-handed or two-sided.
Conciliation:
Another way to act as a third party is to use shuttle diplomacy, which is characterized by the fact that the parties are not ready to meet with one another. The mediator then has to go back and forth between them to make progress first in separate meetings with each side 5). He will then act as a messenger bringing the positions of each party to the attention of the other and helping each side understand what the other is really saying or asking for and to not draw uninformed conclusions. If the parties will not – or cannot – meet, maybe the mediator will be successful at resolving the case without the parties meeting.
Shuttle diplomacy can be carried out with actual meetings where the third party meets with the parties face to face. This can provide the third party with a better sense of each party’s positions and interests. But it can also be done through other means of communication. The telephone is efficient for shuttle diplomacy, especially if the parties are far apart and traveling is not an easy option. This is efficient to resolve matters quickly and get answers to questions right away. Moreover, the internet provides an online connection between the parties, either via email or with webcams. But, as is true for all human interaction, a person’s voice can reveal a lot about his intentions and the true meaning of what he is saying. Even more so the body language 5). Emailing will not help the third party use these valuable tools of interpretation, and miscommunication and misunderstanding are genuine risks.
The conciliator will not interfere with the negotiations when the shuttle diplomacy is over. Once the parties have agreed to meet – and actually do so – his job is over, at least in that function. But he may still have to shuttle between the parties if they reach an impasse in the negotiations or otherwise find it difficult to continue talking face to face. He can then hold separate meetings with the parties – called caucuses – where he will try to get them back on track by talking to them individually. Or, he will have to start all over and try to bring them back together again. Minor issues may be dealt with in caucuses. Issues of greater importance may need to be addressed in actual face to face negotiations between the parties.
Facilitation:
Another approach is facilitation. To facilitate means to make easier 6). The facilitator will provide process leadership and process expertise 7) and will “… help a group improve how it identifies and solves problems and makes decisions to increase the group’s effectiveness. 8)” The aim of facilitation, therefore, is to make sure that the process is effective.
Facilitation can also be used in a conflict situation where two or more parties need a third party to help them through the process of meeting each other and negotiating about the matter at hand. Thus, it resembles what is meant by the “good offices” of the UN Secretary-General. As the facilitator remains a person with no substantive decision-making authority, the group that the facilitator is working with will keep the responsibility for solving its problems. The facilitator just helps them with the process of identifying, but not solving, the problems.
Two different approaches for the facilitator need mentioning here. It is basic facilitation and developmental facilitation 9). Employing the basic form, the facilitator only helps the parties to solve the problem at hand. The focus is on what the problem seems to be at the time of the process. With the developmental approach, he also teaches them how to improve the process themselves so that they can work with a more effective process the next time a problem occurs. This removes the facilitator from the picture, since there will no longer be a need for his assistance. The parties have actually been empowered to handle conflicts by themselves. With the developmental facilitation approach, the parties will learn how to interact together in a way that will create results. With these tools, the role of a third party may be to only help the parties get started and stay in the process. The dialogue itself may eliminate the need for a third party altogether 10). Which approach the facilitator works with, depends entirely on the parties’ choice. In practice, the facilitator moves on a continuum from purely basic to purely developmental facilitation. A good facilitator, then, needs to be able to make use of both approached 11).
Reconciliation:
After conflict resolution, the work to achieve a lasting peace is not over. This is so, at least, when it comes to protracted conflicts that are rooted in attitudes and perceptions that have shaped the parties’ positions over a long period of time, where issues are non-negotiable and deal with identity and integritym 12). Conflict resolution, understood as the ending of immediate fighting or contention and the signing of peace agreements, must be followed by reconciliation before peace, justice, and security can prevail 13). Reconciliation is the restoring of “friendship and harmony between the rival sides after conflict resolution or transforming relations of hostility and resentment to friendly and harmonious ones 14)”. One object of reconciliation is to change the “motivations, goals, beliefs, attitudes, and emotions of… the society members regarding the conflict, the nature of the relationship between the parties, and the parties themselves 15)”.
Widely shared beliefs in a society can form a basis for a collective emotional orientation, which, in turn, becomes a central part of the societal ethos. Therefore, reconciliation is not only a peace between the leaders of the conflicting groups but between the societies. It also involves a new version of what has happened in the past to create the conflict and who was at fault. There are most often two sides to the story, but each side has to let go of its perceived right to blame the other and engage with the other side to create a new version of the facts together.
Reconciliation also requires an acceptance of the identity of the other party. In fact, an important side to reconciliation is that the parties have to remove from their thinking the negation of the other party’s existence and identity and that the parties include each other in their respective moral communities, meaning that dealing with that party no longer is unthinkable and a relationship of interactional dealings can arise between the parties 16). It is an informal societal-cultural process that encompasses the majority of society members, and it requires mutual fundamental understanding, recognition, and legitimization. If mutual respect and even appreciation can be achieved, we are even closer to long-term viable reconciliation and peaceful co-existence.
In other words, the goal of reconciliation is to make sure that the conflict does not arise again. The third party working with reconciliation therefore digs deep into the mold of the strained relationship between the conflicting parties and helps them move on after the resolution of the conflict.
So, reconciliation also has to do with change. These are changes that most often will begin to take place before conflict resolution 17). It is in fact a way to better achieve resolution of the conflict 18). In some cases, it can be a prerequisite for peaceful conflict resolution, because the parties’ beliefs and motivations have to change before they can meet each other to try to resolve the conflict 19). But, even though it may be necessary, this would only be partial reconciliation; true reconciliation can only happen after the resolution.
[1] William Ury, “The Third Side”, p. 146.
[2] Riskind first called the approaches “evaluative” and “facilitative”. Later, he changed it to “directive and “elicitative”. The substance behind the terms remains the same. For purposes of this thesis, I have chosen to use the terms “directive” and “facilitative” as it will help the reader understand the overlap with facilitation.
[3] See Robert A. Baruch Bush and Joseph P. Folger, “The Promise of Mediation: The Transformative Approach to Mediation”, 2005.
[4] Bush and Folger in “Mediation Theory and Practice”, p. 193.
[5] See e.g. William Ury, “The Third Side”, p. 147.
[6] See appendix 2 about the importance of body language.
[7] Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary.
[8] Janice M. Fleischer and Zena D. Zumeta, “Preventing Conflict through Facilitation”, December 1999.
[9] Roger Schwartz, “The Skilled Facilitator”, p. 5.
[10] Roger Schwartz, “The Skilled Facilitator”, p. 8.
[11] Catherine Tinker, “Dispute Resolution and International Law: The UN Dialogue Among Civilizations” , p. 31.
[12] Roger Schwartz, “The Skilled Facilitator”, p. 50.
[13] Tamar Hermann in “From Conflict Resolution to Reconciliation”, pp. 49-50.
[14] Jimmy Carter, “Palestine – Peace not Apartheid”, p. 67.
[15] Bar-Siman-Tov in “From Conflict Resolution to Reconciliation”, p. 4.
[16] Bar-Tal and Gemma Bennink in “From Conflict Resolution to Reconciliation”, p. 12.
[17] Herbert C. Kelman in “From Conflict Resolution to Reconciliation”, p. 119 and p. 122.
[18] Bar-Simon-Tav in “From Conflict Resolution to Reconciliation”, p. 72.
[19] Bar-Tal and Bennink in “From Conflict Resolution to Reconciliation”, p. 26.
[20] See i.a. Herbert C. Kelman in ”From Conflict Resolution to Reconciliation”, p. 112.
Negotiating - theory and practicePosted by Mikkel Gudsøe Sunday, October 28 2007 10:08:30I hereby post you the second part of the excerpts of the Thesis written by Stephan Christophersen.
Please enjoy the reading.
Best regards
Mikkel Gudsøe
Common Traits of Non-Binding Intervention by Third Parties:
By Stephan Christophersen
Subject to protection by the relevant copyright laws and all rights are reserved.
Non-binding third party intervention in conflicts covers the process where the parties in conflict acquire the assistance of a third party that does not have the authority to render a decision that will be binding on the parties. The parties can give the third party that authority during the process, but that will change its role to arbitrator. Since there are not the same system and the same procedural rules to be followed as there are e.g. in trials at court or in arbitration, there is more flexibility in this third party process. This provides for a greater ability to adapt to the specific needs of the parties and the situation at hand[1]. This will generally also help to produce more stable agreements, since the parties themselves are involved in the decision-making process.
Even though some individuals argue that say that there is no such thing as a neutral third party[2], the third party is usually one who is capable of being neutral regarding the outcome of the conflict[3]. A third party who is not neutral can be interested in swaying the negotiations to his own advantage at the expense of the parties. Neutrality, on the other hand, will ensure that his own interests will not be a hindrance to helping the parties reach an agreement that is beneficial to them. Ability to be neutral or not, the important thing – which is also the result of neutrality – is that the third party has “…the ability to reach out, use subjectivity, and deepen empathy and honesty between adversaries.[4]” This provides the parties with a basis upon which a relationship of trust can be established.
Furthermore, the third party must be impartial. Impartiality means that he will not side with any of the parties, and it gives the assurance that his assistance will not be unreasonably beneficial to one of the parties at the expense of the other party. Together with neutrality, impartiality will ensure the unbiased approach of the third party.
It has been said that in order for such a process to be effective, the parties have to be ready for it before it begins. This means that the intervener has work to do before the actual meetings with the parties take place. If the parties are not ready for it, he has to make them ready[5]. This must not be confused with trying to manipulate the outcome of the future meetings or the parties’ positions. It is only the work that is necessary to make sure that the parties are ready for the process. This is especially necessary in a situation where one or more of the parties may be expected to walk out of the meetings. They can do so because the process is voluntary. Or, assurances have to be given if one of the parties has doubts as to the probability of a successful outcome or the intentions of the other side. So, the consent of each of the parties must be attained before the actual process can begin. And sometimes, this requires active preparation of the parties.
Third party intervention is also a way of securing the interests of groups that are hard to represent, like future generations. The parties may be too concerned with their own, immediate interests to think of these groups, but the distance to the conflict enables the third party to go beyond the parties’ interests and also take those of other relevant groups into consideration[6].
It has been said of the mediator that some of the tasks that he generally has to carry out include making sure that the contending parties carry on a constructive dialogue, that hostilities are scaled down, an amicable solution is achieved, and that tension is reduced while the pacific relations created between the parties do not turn into hostility again[7]. But this is true for all of the approaches. Sometimes, it may not be necessary. But the third party has to be able to evaluate what kind of conflict he is dealing with and how far along the continuum of conflict escalation the conflict has evolved – from differences of opinion to hostility and polarization – in order to best adapt his approach.
Each conflict can warrant specific approaches and he has to be able to choose the most suitable one.
[1] William P. Smith, in “Negotiation Theory And Practice”, p. 402.
[2] See e.g. Kenneth Cloke, “Mediating Dangerously”, pp. 12-13.
[3] See e.g. Lon F. Fuller in “Mediation Theory and Practice”, p. 151, or Joseph Stuhlberg, ibid, p. 162.
[4] Kenneth Cloke, “Mediating Dangerously”, p. 14.
[5] “…there must be a substantial investment in quiet diplomacy… before deals can be cut.”, “The Peace Process”, William B. Quandt, p. 385.
[6] Breslin and Rubin, “Effectiveness of the Biased Mediator” in “Negotiation Theory and Practice”, p. 409.
[7] See also “Handbook on the peaceful settlement of disputes between states”, p. 41 and an early reference to this line of thought in the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, common art 4.
Negotiating - theory and practicePosted by Mikkel Gudsøe Sunday, October 07 2007 20:11:25Dear Readers,
In the forth coming weeks you can enjoy parts of a Thesis: Third Party Intervention in International Political Conflicts.
The Thesis was written by Stephan Christophersen - a good friend of mine - as part of him finishing the law study af the University of Copenhagen - School of Law.
The Thesis and the posted parts are - as well as all other text posted on this website - subject to protection by the relevant copyright laws and all rights are reserved.
Best regards,
Mikkel Gudsøe
THIRD PARTY INTERVENTION IN INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL CONFLICTS
- the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
By Stephan Christophersen
Before you is a thesis written for the course, “Negotiation and Dispute Resolution in Theory and Practice”, taught at the University of Copenhagen. It deals with dispute resolution in international political conflicts, and explores different types of roles that a third party can play in such conflicts (1).
A lot of the literature on intervention by third parties solely mentions the role of a mediator. It seems like several of the authors believe that all the techniques that the intervening party can play can be summed up under that category. My opinion is different. I believe that it is imperative for the theory on resolution of conflicts that different roles are treated differently. By subsuming the roles under the same tag, some of the differences are lost and with them the characteristics that make each role stand out. This can make us loose sight of the special opportunities that each role provides a third party with, thus rendering it with a lesser ability to adapt its approach to the special circumstances of the conflict at hand.
This is the reason behind my wish to write such a paper. I focus on the roles that have been played by third parties in the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians. For a long time, this conflict has been, and it continues to be, a very important item on the international agenda, and it has been the object for much studying. It is not my errand to pronounce my own verdict on the merits of the conflict, nor is it to advance either side’s positions. But this conflict does offer a special opportunity to examine the factors that a third party has to take into consideration in order to provide the contending parties with the most effective of services.
From a brief description of the common characteristics of the kind of intervention that is legally non-binding, and after describing four different roles that a third party can play, I will proceed to examine previous third party intervention in the conflict. This will lay a foundation for recognizing and understanding some of the factors that influence the third party in its choice of roles and their influence on the conflict.
My focus mainly rests on the involvement of the United States of America. This nation, by far, has been the most active outside influence on the parties in the conflict and, therefore, it deserves special attention (2). I will briefly describe the American involvement under selected presidents, and finish off that section with a closer look at two summits convening the parties to the conflict on US soil. Norway has also been involved in the conflict, and the Norwegian approach in the early 1990s is rewarded special attention as it gives, perhaps, the best example of one of the described roles in action. The order, in which the previous interventions are described, will be chronological.
After having read that far, the reader will have been equipped with a basic knowledge of what it means to play the role of a third party in such a conflict and of the functions of the different roles in practical reality. And to present an overview of the context into which the third party has to incorporate its function, the analysis of some of the determining factors will give the impression that, most often, more is needed to resolve such a conflict than the capabilities to play just one of the roles. This will take the reader into the final section of the thesis where I propose my own view of the roles of a third party.
As a paper of this kind presents certain constraints on the amount of pages available to me, I have tried to write this paper in the spirit of brevity while still relaying what I think is needed to create a satisfying understanding of the topic. Even so, there is much more to be debated. The following is my contribution to that debate.
Since political and other evaluations are necessary for an analysis of the factors that influence a third party in an international political conflict, this paper inevitably contains elements of a political nature in addition to the elements directly related to the legal disciplines of conflict management and dispute resolution.
(1) The term “third party” as used here describes one that is not directly involved in the conflict, but intervenes in it as an outsider. (For a discussion of the third party as an insider, as well, see William Ury, “Third Side”, pp. 19-20.) The parties to the conflict, who are directly involved, will be called the “contending parties” or just “the parties”.
(2) See e.g. Gilead Sher, “Within Reach”, p. 63 on Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak’s view and Dennis Ross, “The Missing Peace”, p. 622 on Yasser Arafat’s view of Clinton summed up in the statement, “No one was like Clinton”.
Negotiating - theory and practicePosted by Mikkel Gudsøe Saturday, September 15 2007 14:13:23Dear Readers,
It has been a while since my last theoretical postings - this due to heavy workload for the Federation of Danish Textile & Clothing together with my teaching at the University of Aarhus School of Law.
I have just spent a week at the Moscow Fashion Fair - CPM and for now I am attending the very exclusive www.designersandagents.com fair in New York together with some very promising danish design and fashion companies.
However we are also facing some very exciting last months of 2007 and in the beginning of 2008 I believe time will be more available for writing topics on negotiation.
At this time (now) also I am preparing my contribution on a practical but professional book on Intellectual Property Rights (copyrights and domain names for my part).
I look forward serving you views on negotiation.
Best regards
Mikkel Gudsøe
Negotiating - theory and practicePosted by Mikkel Gudsøe Monday, July 16 2007 23:21:13Dear Readers,
I am taking a couple of weeks of on Summer Holiday.
Upon returning it will be with a.o. some great new stuff on Third Party Intervention In International Political Conflicts by Stephan Hansen - a new but great friend with some excellent theoretical and practical skills in negotiation.
Stephan will also as guest lecturer attend the Legal Negotiation course at the Univesity of Aarhus - School of law.
I will revert with book reviews when time is available and various comments were relevant.
Primarily time is spent preparing the above mentioned course together with the planning of a new very interesting and exciting career shift from 30 July this year - more on that to come.
Best regards
Mikkel Gudsøe
Negotiating - theory and practicePosted by Mikkel Gudsøe Monday, May 21 2007 11:19:51Dear readers,
I have been busy - very busy working hard on various cases at work and exciting projects (teaching a.o.).
At present time I am currently discussing some possible publications in danish on the topics negotiation/legal negotiation which I will revert to later if it concludes.
Also I am in the process of deciding the next book that I will read with comments on this blog.
Stay tuned - and sorry for the delay in my posts - but as you all know one has only got 24hrs/day.
Best regards
Mikkel Gudsøe
