|
Structuring Negotiations for Durable Peace
Abstract:
The paper attempts to look at the role of negotiations in ensuring
peace. The durability of any peace process depends on the how the
peace accord is made. Through the NAN (Negotiation About Negotiation)
Approach an attempt is made to analyze the process of peace making
rather than peace implementation. The NAN Approach clearly focuses
on the role on the civil society in creating a convergence of demands
before actual negotiations can take off. This is expected to be
an improvement upon the cosmetic measures designed to involve the
people in the conflict resolution process.
The views of prominent theorists like R. Fisher, J. Burton and H.
Kelman on the negotiation process are combined with Edward E. Azar’s
analysis of protracted social conflicts to evolve a theoretical
framework for managing the highly critical pre-negotiation dynamics.
During the negotiations political leadership prepares the overall
framework and inputs are sought from the local level. In NAN strategy
the framework is fashioned at the local level within which macro-level
actors would operate. The basic rationale of the paper is that managing
the micro-elements at the pre-negotiation phase can provide ample
room for the macro-elements to structure durable peace during actual
negotiations.
A common theme of international discourse in contemporary times
is conflict resolution and peace building. From Kosovo in Europe
to Kashmir in South Asia; from Darfur in Africa to Arab-Israel in
the Middle East; from the ethnic crisis in Sri Lanka to issues of
power sharing between Britain and Northern Ireland; from humanitarian
challenges in Somalia to international concerns over nuclear proliferation,
conflicts, crisis, political discords, national rivalries dominate
international news. Following Hobbes’s analysis and the realist
rationale the source of this international anarchy can be traced
to the characteristics of human nature. But according to psychological
reasoning if the desire for power is inherent in human nature so
is the craving for peace. International politics adequately reflects
this duality of human nature as the occurrence of conflicts parallels
the desire for peace. From the Dayton Accords to the Lahore Declaration;
from Norwegian mediation in Sri Lanka to international treaties
like CTBT and NPT; from the Good Friday Accord to the Bonn Agreement
every conflict scenario has witnessed a corresponding peace process.
But for ending conflicts rather than merely managing them it is
imperative to make peace irreversible and durable. Most of the above
stated conflicts and subsequent redressal measures have resulted
in erratic peace. In turning this erratic peace into an enduring
one the present study examines the process of structuring negotiations.
The paper attempts to make a theoretical contribution to the process
of peace building in North-East India. The region has a distinct
character and no generalized approach can resolve the prevailing
crisis. Nevertheless certain theoretical insights could help in
reviewing the conflictual dynamics of the region. The North-East
has witnessed numerous peace accords, some of which have been partially
successful while some have miserably failed. These challenges increase
the need to explore new alternatives for bringing peace to the region.
One of the obvious approaches to peace is open discussion and interaction
which can lead to proper negotiations and subsequent peace proposals.
The substantive portion of this paper deals with the specifics of
the negotiation approach. This approach could be further refined
and contextualized to address the challenges to peace and stability,
which unfortunately are too numerous in this region. This paper
in no way presents a peace plan but merely discusses the essentials
of a general peace plan which can be applied to the region. Since
the journey towards peace traverses through unknown and challenging
terrain innovation and experimentation are unavoidable. It has been
widely acknowledged that conflict resolution requires the engagement
of numerous actors, including those in civil society, to re-knit
the fabric of society at all levels from grassroots to the political
elites. (Ronald Fisher 2006) The present paper seeks to discuss
a mechanism that facilitates this engagement.
There are two discernibly observable phenomenon in conflicts around
the world. One is that the root of every conflict lies in the desire
for greater freedom, autonomy, sovereignty either by an ethnic group,
a regional group or a state. (Daneil Fisher 2005) Second, the mechanism
for bringing peace to conflict situations around the globe is negotiation.
Despite the aggression and violence discussions, deliberations,
information exchanges are central to any peace attempt. It is on
these foundations of real freedom and open discussion that the peace
approach of this paper is based.
Negotiations Dynamics
In essence, negotiation is a creative activity in which the parties
involved discover information about each other’s needs and
interests and come to common decisions on some issue or set of issues.
(Bruce Hemmer 2006) Negotiation includes all cases in which two
or more parties are communicating, each for the purpose of influencing
the other’s decision. Nothing seems to be gained by limiting
the concept to formal negotiations taking place at a table, and
much to be gained by defining the subject broadly. (Fisher 1991,
quoted in Breslin and Rubin 1991) Though the concept of negotiation
is central to peace making, the fact remains that peace in the real
sense is still elusive. This makes re-looking at negotiations vital.
A few prerequisites and facts about negotiations need to be reasserted.
In a successful negotiation, everyone wins. The objective
should be agreement, not victory. This mantra stands in
opposition to the common tactics employed during negotiations in
contemporary times. Any negotiation which aims to defeat the other
party would not result in durable peace. The desire to negotiate
implies the willingness to agree in contrast to the desire to win
as exemplified in conflict situations.
Without common interests there is nothing to negotiate for;
without conflict there is nothing to negotiate about. This
implies that in every negotiation situation common interests and
conflict are inevitably interlinked. The need for negotiations arises
from the existence of conflicts, while the hope in negotiations
is sustained by possibility of discovering common interests. Rather
than the issue divergence it is the anger, frustration, resentment,
mistrust, hostility, and a sense of futility that complicate the
negotiation process.
Negotiations should focus on interests
not positions. The purpose of negotiations is to achieve
particular interests and satisfy specific demands. Minor compromises
and concessions can help achieve desirable results and hence innovative
solutions should not be scarified at the altar of sacrosanct positions.
The Negotiation Approach discussed in this paper focuses attention
on the process of interaction rather than on the content of the
negotiated positions.
A critical element in negotiation is to come to understanding
the other party's underlying interests and needs. Negotiations
imply interactions between two or more parties. For interactions
to be fruitful it is necessary that each side acknowledges the needs
and interests of the other side. Without such acknowledgement no
discussion can take place and interactions become mere political
gimmicks.
Negotiation is a sequence of events, not an incident. Negotiations
can succeed only when continuity and diligence of dialogue is maintained.
Once negotiations are initiated every event, including disruption
of dialogue, forms a part of the on-going process of negotiated
interaction. Incorporating lessons from failed negotiations not
only link one stage of negotiations to the other but also provide
a self corrective mechanism. Negotiations need to be approached
as an exercise in ‘image-restoration’ (Raymond Friedman
1994) by all parties which requires consistent innovative input.
Negotiations should focus on resolving not merely managing
conflict. Negotiations can lead to disastrous results if
approached as temporary time buying tactics. Sustained and comprehensive
negotiations are vital for understanding, discussing and addressing
the root causes of any conflict so as to resolve it rather than
merely regulate crisis.
If the above discussed essentials are followed a genuine negotiating
mechanism can emerge. The general principles of negotiations need
to be contextualized for resolving contemporary conflicts. Given
the fact that modern day conflicts are usually ethnic, religious
or regional in origin certain additional concerns figure in ensuring
successful negotiations. These issues have been discussed in greater
details in the book by R. Fisher and W. Ury. (Fisher and Ury 1983)
Separate people from problems.
The structural features of any conflict need to be viewed as distinct
from its human components. Although an organic partition of the
two is difficult a minimal degree of separation can be managed and
is desirable.
Soft on people and hard on the problem.
In an attempt to address a crisis most of the current peace accords
follow rigid and unyielding measures, the implementation of which
creates hardships for the common people. The resolution mechanisms
worked during negotiations have to target the problems rather than
those facing the problem.
Integrative bargaining to replace distributive
bargaining. (Heidi Burgess 2004) Most negotiations fall-out
on the issue of diving the pie or the pay-off. Since resources are
usually scarce optimal utilization warrants creating greater stakes
in sharing the pay-off rather than dividing it.
How you approach a negotiation will play a key role in how
the negotiation proceeds. The foundation determines the
character of the super-structure. Likewise the intentions and ground
work leading to actual negotiations would determine the nature of
peace. Pre-negotiation stage is critical in terms of determining
the actual content of negotiations and subsequent peace plans.
NAN – Meaning and Rationale
Having established the centrality of negotiations in building peace
and having reviewed the essentials of a proper negotiation approach
it is vital to work out a viable negotiation mechanism to address
various conflicts. The present paper attempts to focus on a critical
dimension of negotiations in evolving a theoretical approach for
structuring peace. The approach is called the Negotiation About
Negotiations Approach – NAN (John Burton 1990). There are
several prominent theorists like R. Fisher (1983, 1989), J. Burton
(1986), E. Azar (1990) and Galtung (1996) who have referred to different
aspects of the negotiation process. Based on the writings of these
theorists, the conflictual dynamics in various crises and Edward
E. Azar’s study (E. Azar 1990) on protracted social conflicts,
this paper discusses the NAN approach to peace.
For the purpose of conceptual clarity it is important to note that
NAN is not negotiation about the problem, but emphasizes on the
pre-negotiation dynamics. It is an exercise in suggesting on how
to approach the problem rather than outlining the final resolution
of the problem. The NAN Approach concentrates on the immediate environmental
variables so that actual negotiations can be initiated from a point
of convergence. The bargaining space in terms of participants and
issues is delimited during the NAN phase. The overt politicization
of conflict situations and peace processes has diminished prospects
of any positive outcome. NAN allows to shift the focus of attention
from the macro political determinants to the micro human demands.
In doing so NAN leans heavily on the support and involvement of
Track Two elements in the negotiating process.
The nature of contemporary conflicts and its complexicity vindicates
the need for a NAN approach. It is an innovation necessitated by
circumstances. Most of the conflicts have got frozen in a historical
space; NAN helps the respective positions and demands to reconnect
to reality. In conflicts where combatants and victims of war are
largely civilians, citizen-based peace processes are crucial to
healing the deep wounds of the communities and thus finding lasting
solutions. A study by Paula Garb and Susan Allen Nan (2006) shows
how participants in multiple peace building initiatives systematically
negotiated mutually satisfactory arrangements that progressed from
information sharing to joint strategizing; several organizations
managed to take that cooperation further to share resources and
cooperate on joint initiatives and projects.
Harold Suanders (2001) contends that peacemaking cannot focus solely
on the negotiation of agreements between representatives, but must
involve changing relationships among societies. Thus many other
activities need to occur prior to, around and after negotiation
in order to secure a lasting and comprehensive peace, particularly
in deep-rooted human conflicts where people will not negotiate about
their identities, historic grievances, dignity and so on.
The basic idea of NAN is to reverse the current strategy. During
the negotiations political leadership prepares the overall framework
and inputs are sought from the local level. In NAN strategy the
framework is fashioned at the local level within which macro-level
actors would operate. The greatest potential for preparing societies
for peace comes from the grassroots. Peace cannot be imposed but
rather must grow from the bottom up. NAN as a bottom up approach
aims at four objectives in devolving a peace approach.
• To evolve the underlying consensus in the multiplicity of
demands.
• This consensus on the political, economic, strategic, ethnic
and religious issues would then emerge as a charter of demands.
• The Charter is presented to the political leadership at
different levels.
• Political level consultations have to take cognizance of
this charter of demands.
Guidelines for NAN
After having re-looked at negotiations and established the importance
of pre-negotiation stage in determining the durability of the peace
process the following guidelines would help in giving practical
shape to the NAN Approach.
Hegemonic dialogue is to be replaced with a multilogue:
In a hegemonic dialogue the structure and substance of negotiations
is pre-determined and rigid. The dialogue process is opened to the
various parties having a stake in the resolution of the conflict.
An inclusive dialogue process acknowledges plurality, transparency
and flexibility and ensures the sustainability of the peace plan.
Non-Political in Character: The
inclusivity of the dialogue tends to de-politicize the process making
it an open interaction involving representatives from different
regions, ethnic communities, separatist groups, state and national
political parties, members of the local police force and armed forces
and international actors. Such interactions can be chaired by a
recognized neutral international forum or civil society group at
the national or international level. Wider participation expected
due to the non-political character of the interaction. For too long
has the desire for peace been hostage to the lack of political will.
A wide range of intermediaries like a diverse collection of non-governmental
organizations working in the humanitarian, development and religious
domains are already engaged in the process of facilitating negotiations.
The NAN Approach seeks to increase their involvement at the stage
of structuring negotiations rather than merely assisting in implementing
it.
Unit of Analysis is the Group: Demands of the regional,
religious, ethnic and cultural collectivities should be discussed
at the NAN stage. Group is not to be viewed as a competitor to the
state. Attempts are made to discuss the insecurities and apprehensions
of the group rather than labeling them as illegitimate demands.
Identity politics is central to any ethnic conflict and if the other
party attempts to overlook this fact the latter are commitment to
negotiated settlement may dwindle.
Concentrate on the enduring features of the Conflict:
Most conflict studies are based on the analysis of immediate events
of violence and ceasefire. The real roots of the conflict are contained
elsewhere in the unintegrated social and political systems, economic
deprivation, technological underdevelopment, communal insecurities.
NAN approach focuses on the events of violence as merely the symptoms
rather than the causes of the malady.
Emphasis on micro-level actors and their demands:
Simple issues of peace and development affect the people in conflict
situations the most. Highly political and technical issues of resource
sharing, autonomy etc are rarely the immediate concerns of the real
conflict bearers. Socio-economic concerns like minority groups and
their demands of organized safeguards, issues of child and women
development, youth empowerment and constructive employment emerge
as more critical demands. Over-emphasis on the macro-level factors
has led to politicization of the problem turning a dispute center
into land of empty promises.
Convergence on the issue of denial of human needs:
The NAN strategy is not to seek compromises from one set of concerns
over others, but to find convergences; every regional, ethnic, religious
and cultural concern needs to be respected, Deprivation of group
rights need to be viewed and projected as denial of human rights.
Divergence needs to be tackled by working on Habermas’s insights
on disagreement as both threat and remedy.
NAN and Real Conflicts
It is interesting to see how NAN performs when applied to real conflict
situations. Though the approach may sound too ambitious various
peace attempts contain certain elements of the NAN approach. There
are numerous examples where either NAN has been ignored or partially
applied to result in fragile peace. Similarly certain peace attempts
owe success largely to the decisions made during the NAN phase.
The Sudan conflict demonstrates that any consensus on basic principles
makes the road to peace a little smoother. The Declaration of Principles
signed in 1994 between the Sudan Peoples Liberation Movement and
the Government of Sudan helped in clarifying the claims and plans
of each side. Resolution of the Indo-China boundary dispute according
to many is making no head-way. But the fact is that both countries
are working on an Agreement on the Principles guiding the resolution
of the dispute which characterizes the NAN approach. Rather than
rushing into unworkable agreements, NAN allows concerned parties
to freely interact for arriving at certain agreeable principles.
Most of the features of the Good Friday Agreement are drawn from
the vigorous civil society interactions and the ensuing reports.
The Jan Andolan in Nepal is an example of how convergence in civil
society can ensure rapprochement among the macro level leadership.
The peoples’ uprising in June 2006 forced the Seven Party
Alliance and Maoists to come together and work for a durable political
resolution of the internal crisis. Though the peace process in Nepal
is still continuing NAN has given it a good start. NAN is merely
the first stage in the peace process; it prepares the groundwork
for actual negotiations to take place.
The Innovative Problem Solving Workshop employed in the Peru-Ecuador
(Kaufman and Sosnowski 2005) peace process clearly highlights the
degree to which the civil society can contribute to peace making.
Herbert Kelman (1995) maintained that the 1990-93 continuing workshop
helped to lay the foundation for the Oslo Accord. In US sessions
of the of the Secretary’s Open Forum (State 2002) are held
under the auspices of the Department of State since September 2002
to encourage popular discussion on various issues in foreign affairs
including global peace building. Dialogue processes have contributed
to the official pre-negotiation efforts, helping to build the legitimacy
and/or support for official negotiations to take place, as in the
dialogues between representatives of the ANC and influential white
South Africans that were organized by the South African leaders
in the period leading up to official negotiations. (Lieberfeld 2002)
NAN is also susceptible to misuse in certain cases to stall the
peace process. The Norwegian mediation in Sri Lanka has facilitated
the NAN phase between Tamil and Sinhala fractions. But there appears
to be a stalemate at the NAN stage. There is no urgency for charting
a peace plan and implementing it with sincerity. Hence graduating
the NAN to the phase of actual negotiation is imperative.
Another very important area concerning international peace is the
issue of international involvement in crisis situations. We have
the most vivid examples of Bosnia, Afghanistan and Iraq among others.
These regions are still facing several challenges in terms of establishing
durable peace - ethno-religious co-existence, unsatisfactory power-sharing
arrangements, problems of economic development, stability and security
after the international forces withdraw.
For such situations an International Forum for Durable Conflict
Resolution can be created. The idea of this forum draws inspiration
from John Burton’s Human Needs Model (Burton 1990) and Conflict
Transformation Approach of Folger (Folger 1993) and Lederach (Lederach
2003). The basic aim of the forum in every case is to create the
‘humanitarian space’- a space of freedom in which we
are free to evaluate needs, free to monitor the distribution and
use of relief goods, free to have a dialogue with people. To create
such a space the humanitarian agencies will have to assume pseudo-diplomatic
functions, which would further ensure space for the politico-strategic
variables to operate with least friction. The Forum can comprise
of the following structures.
Permanent Wing:
Officials from agencies like UNHCR, UNOCHA, ICRC,
WFP, WHO, MSF, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International- will form
the permanent arm of the forum. All areas experiencing or threatened
by any major crisis will be reviewed by the wing and for handling
the politically areas of the crisis the following wings will be
constituted. Depending on the nature and geographical location of
the crisis the constituents of these wings will change.
Diplomatic Wing:
Representatives from the international community,
which will include countries like direct interests and facilitating
countries. Personnel from the humanitarian agencies will also be
included to ensure that the whole process is not solely dominated
by political concerns of some selected countries. Representatives
of the donor agencies and countries can be actively involved in
the discussions of the wing, where their concerns regarding accountability
of the projects can be addressed. The basic task of the wing will
be to work out an ad hoc engagement to restore order within the
concerned country and utilize the resource wealth of the country
in a mutually beneficial manner.
Military Wing:
This wing will consist of forces drawn from countries
willing to contribute to the peacemaking efforts under an international
command. The peacekeeping role is redefined to provide defensive
cover for humanitarian assistance programmes, apart from observing
the ceasefire. The forum can over a period of time create an autonomous
defense wing comprising of personnel drawn guerilla and paramilitary
forces of areas where conflict resolution is underway. A special
reorientation programme will have to be designed and followed by
the Permanent Wing for suitable preparing the forces for the required
tasks. This would gradually reduce the dependence on individual
states for contributing to the protection force and will help to
stabilize the peace process by gradually inducting disbanded guerilla
and para-military forces.
Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Wing:
This would include the donor and Humanitarian agencies
along with private companies’ consortium. Reconstruction of
public utilities like roads, schools, hospitals, and water and food
supplies can be given to interested consortium of private companies,
with a revenue sharing agreement with their respective governments.
The priority areas and necessary plans are to be prepared jointly
by these consortiums and humanitarian agencies. These plans will
be submitted to the donor agencies for seeking necessary financial
assistance. Responsibility for ensuring the completion of the projects
will be shared by all wings of the Forum.
Concerned Party Wing:
The country facing a conflict needs to be substantially
represented on the Forum to comprehend the ground situation and
communicate possible solutions. Based on the specificities of the
conflict and available strategies an ad hoc arrangement will be
proposed by the other wings, to which the other parties will have
to respond with their suggestions. Through negotiations and bargaining
a roadmap will be evolved, which will be implemented through guarantees
by each country represented on the forum.
The example of Bosnia-Herzegovina highlights the costs of neglecting
the NAN phase. The Dayton Accord was essential for stopping the
ensuing violence. But Dayton did not, and some may argue could not,
involve an input from the real conflict bearers. One of the enduring
problems of peace in Bosnia-Herzegovina is to difficulty in getting
the Bosnians to face up to their problems and contribute to the
resolutions. Expert analyses hold that unless solutions grow indigenously
out of the political culture of Bosnia, they are unlikely to be
respected by population the once the international community leaves.
People who have not contributed to the solution can abdicate the
responsibility for its failure. The Dayton Accords have failed in
the essential task of creating a political community that takes
responsibility for resolving its own problems, which is perhaps
the most damming evidence that a peace, with a life and logic of
its own has not been created in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Once Dayton
had established conditions of relative peace the NAN approach could
help to work out possible contours of durable peace.
NAN is necessary not only in particular conflict situations, but
is also vital for the general conduct of international relations.
Negotiations and treaties on issues like non-proliferation (NPT,
CTBT), environmental protection (Kyoto Proposals), economic interests
(WTO negotiations) have failed in achieving the desired objectives
primarily because the NAN phase has been ignored.
NAN- A Rational Approach to Durable Peace
The above examples clearly highlight the flexibility and adaptability
of NAN. Essentials of the approach can be applied in several conflicts
ranging from intra-state ethnic differences to inter-state boundary
disputes. NAN even holds promise of emerging as a more acceptable
pre-emptive mechanism to tackle conflicts. The flexibility of the
approach is drawn from the fact that it is a dialogue promoting
approach rather than a rigid problem-solving mechanism.
While activating the NAN strategy it needs to be reasserted that
this not a solution to actual or potential crisis, but merely a
mechanism to approach the crisis. To turn this mechanism into a
solution generating platform participation of the non-political
elements is essential. At the onset of the paper it was stated that
the desire for greater autonomy or freedom lies at the root of all
conflicts. Autonomy literally means empowerment. NAN empowers the
conflict units by enabling them to the structure negotiations. Hence
NAN guarantees autonomy in the true sense of the term and thereby
addressing the basic cause of every conflict. And the durability
of peace generated by the NAN approach rests on this fact.
• Acknowledgements: I am highly indebted
to Global India Foundation for giving me an opportunity to present
this paper. Without Prof. Omprakash Mishra’s guidance and
Dr. Tania Dass’s involvement the paper would not have been
possible in its present form. Due acknowledgement needs to be given
to my parents, especially my mother for helping me to conceptualize
and write this paper.
• References
Azar, Edward E. and Rick Ayre. 1990. The Management of Protracted
Social Conflict: Theory and Cases. Brookfield, VT: Dartmouth Press.
Burgess, Heidi. “Negotiation Strategies: Beyond Intractability,
in Conflict Research Consortium, Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess,
eds., University of Colorado, Boulder. Posted: January 2004 <http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/negotiation_strategies/>
Burton, John. “The history of international conflict resolution”,
in International Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice, Edward
E. Azar and John W. Burton, eds. Boulder, L. Rienner, 1986, p. 40-55.
Burton, John and Dukes, Frank. 1990. Conflict: Resolution and Prevention.
New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Burton, J. 1990. Conflict: Human Needs Theory. London Macmillan.
Burton, John W. 1993. "Conflict Resolution as a Political Philosophy"
in Conflict Resolution Theory and Practice: Integration and Applicatio,
Dennis J. D. Sandole and Hugo van der Merwe eds., Manchester and
New York. Manchester University Press. p. 55-64.
Fisher, J. Ronald, Ury, W. 1983. Getting To Yes: Negotiating Agreement
Without Giving In. New York, Penguin Books.
Fisher, J. Ronald. 1989. Prenegotiation Problem-solving Discussions:
Enhancing the Potential for Successful Negotiation, in Getting to
the Table, J.G. Stein eds., Baltimore, London: Johns Hopkins University
Press. P. 206-238
Fisher, J. Ronald. 2006. Coordination Between Track Two and Track
One: Diplomacy in Successful Ceases of Prenegotiation. International
Negotiation. Vol. 11, 2006. p.66.
Fisher, J. Ronald. Daneil, Shapiro. 2005 Beyond Reason: Using Emotion
As You Negotiate. New York. Viking/Penguin.
Folger, J.P. 1993. Working Through Conflict: Strategies for Relationships,
Groups, and Organizations. New York: Harper Collins College Publishers.
Friedman, A. Raymond. 1994 Front Stage, Back Stage: The dramatic
Structure of Labor Negotiations. Cambridge, MIT Press.
Galtung, Johan. 1996. Peace by Peaceful Means; Peace and Conflict,
Development and Civilization. London. Sage Publications.
Garb Paula, Nan A. Susan. 2006. “Negotiating in a Coordinated
Network of Citizen Peacebuilding Initiatives in the Georgian-Abkhaz
Peace Process”. International Negotiation. Vol. 11, 2006,
p. 7-35.
Kaufman, Edy, Saul Sosnowski. 2005. The Peru-Ecuador Peace Process:
The Contribution of Track Teo Diplomacy, in Paving the Way: Contributions
of Interactive Conflict resolution to Peacemaking, Ronald Fisher
eds., Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, P. 175-201.
Kelman, Herbert. 1995. “Contributions of an Unofficial Conflict
Resolution effort to the Israeli-Palestinian Breakthrough”.
Negotiation Journal. Vol. 11, p. 11-27.
Lederach, John Paul, Michelle Maiese. "Conflict Transformation."
in Beyond Intractability, Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess eds., Conflict
Research Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Posted: October
2003. Available online http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/transformation/
Lieberfeld. 2002. “Evaluating the Contributions of Track Two
Diplomacy to Conflict Termination in South Africa, 1989-1990.”
Journal of Peace Research, Vol.39, No.3. P. 355-372.
|