Last Part of Thesis
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.
