Simply put, this is the process of relationship repair. The importance of this theory cannot be understated. Reconciliation of divided people and societies is vital to preventing the reoccurrence of violence and building long-term, sustainable peace (Sustainable reconciliation, 2013). If people do not reconcile, conflicts will continue to arise time after time after time. Pruitt and Kim (2004) maintain that there is a consensus among theorists that there are two requirements necessary for reconciliation to be effective and sustainable.
The two sides first make demands. If they do not like the details of the demands, either side can reject them and eventually both sides will come to an agreement. Bargaining always involves interdependent actions because the decisions that are made by one actor will almost always depend on the likely or actual decisions of the other actor (Van Der Windt, 2011). Since successful bargaining can prevent war, it can be said that war is the result of failed bargaining. In Rationalist Explanations of War, James D. Fearon suggests that war is a “costly lottery” where both sides must decide if going to war is worth the losses they will incur (Fearon, Rationalist explanations for war , 1995).
(Edwin, 2002, p 67) The purpose for mediator is clearing target and interest for parties, evaluating advantages and disadvantages for each position, exploring possible options, and encouraging them to reach agreement. A sapiential mediator has significant impacts on handling troublesome problems and facilitating parties to achieve consensus during the negotiation process. Firstly, mediators impel to persuade interlocutors separate interpersonal relationship from the essence of negotiation, and build bridge to connect these two parties. Moreover, mediator provides a neutral stage and give faces to both parties convert controversy to reconciliation when neither of them makes a concession. At the same time, a compromise suggestion which... ... middle of paper ... ...isputes and relax relationship when negotiation sink into deadlock, and it also encourage parties to achieve consensus.
William Zartman advocates a theory of ripeness and mutually hurting stalemates to explain how and why conflict have ended. Throughout this essay his theory will be analyze through the conflicts in Northern Ireland, Cambodia and the Oslo agreement. Through these three conflicts the strengths and weaknesses of ripeness theory can be seen Zartmans theory states that when a conflict is ripe it is ready to be negotiated. A ripe moment is described as when both parties of the conflict are ready to negotiate. In that moment the parties are willing to agree to a settlement that has been there the whole time, but only now it attractive to them (Zartman, 2001).
People of all races all over the world in some way have been affected or involved in conflict. How countries make peace with one another, how people learn to lay aside their differences requires resolve and peace. The following will analyze an article written by Mark Howard Ross relating to the theories of practice in ethnic conflict resolution and the conditions created for peacemaking. This article examines ethnic conflict and the six theories of practice and six different approaches of conflict resolution; conflict transformation; principled negotiation; community relations; intercultural miscommunications, psychoanalytically rooted identity, human needs, and principled negotiation. It has been disputed that stronger vocalization of these expectations should increase together practice and theory in the pursuit for resolution to stark ethnic conflict.
“You always can learn and become a negotiator” – J. Mitts . Secondly, we learned with whom we need to negotiate, how to start and what to prepare. For negotiation are needed at least two parties/interests that are interdepended, it is not worth to negotiate about salary with the person from whom level of your salary is not depended. State the goals before negotiation – what we would like to reach, and how we want to be viewed by other part (“don’t lose your face”). It is needed to be flexible; it can help to get “winner” position.
There are numbers of reason why parties choose mediation. It can derive from a contractual agreement that stipulate parties to require mediation in dispute. The same agreement might state the more cost-effectiveness of mediation as an option. Parties may also be advised by legal advisers that parties undergo mediation before they commence litigation. Countries require parties to undergo ADR, mediation, before trial, ‘in these cases, courts proceedings are stayed to await the outcome of mediation.
Every procedure has various factors that influence its workings; few more than the other. In determining which factors are more influential than the rest, an analysis of the procedure in the light of the purpose that it intends on achieving is required. This essay will also examine Dispute Avoidance Procedures (DAPs) in the context of resolving conflicts and furthering the project to its completion in the best interest of contracting parties. During which it will be argued against the necessary existence of a good working relationship between the parties to have an effective DAP. DAPs are mechanisms that are (usually) employed at the commencement of a contract to resolve conflicts on-site before they develop into a dispute.
Negotiation plays a vital role in the creation of domestic and international policy. In general terms it is defined as a joint decision-making process in which initially incompatible parties arrive at an agreement thought the exchange of concessions and problem-solving. It normally includes both dialogue with discussion on merits, and bargaining with the use of competitive tactics such as promises or threats (Lang, 1996). The use of negotiation is part of a trend of alternative dispute settlement (Fiorino, 1988). Controversies that are handled with negotiation and rule-making seek to resolve the disputes and attain resolutions that have broad applicability.
Therefore, to test the waters and get more information, I made the first proposal which was rejected but provided grounds to start negotiating. After the first voting, I proposed a turn-based negotiation, in which each party would have time to speak about its interests, propose a counter-offer and answer question. My objective was to better understand what each party considered important, had in common with others and to learn its Introvert/Extrovert personality function. The group accepted the proposal but DCR wanted to be the last, which later turned to be a problem. During this stage, the shared interests and alliances started to become clear.