What exists is possible -- Georgians and South Ossetians wage war and peace -- Practice builds theory -- People make peace -- Process shapes people-centered peacemaking -- Locals lead with global awareness -- Peacemakers adapt -- Both individuals and groups of people make peace -- Peacemaking is personal.
Zugriffsoptionen:
Die folgenden Links führen aus den jeweiligen lokalen Bibliotheken zum Volltext:
What exists is possible -- Georgians and South Ossetians wage war and peace -- Practice builds theory -- People make peace -- Process shapes people-centered peacemaking -- Locals lead with global awareness -- Peacemakers adapt -- Both individuals and groups of people make peace -- Peacemaking is personal.
This book examines the theory and practice of interactive peacemaking, centering the role of people in making peace. The book presents the theory and practice of peacemaking as found in contemporary processes globally. By putting people at the center of the analysis, it outlines the possibilities of peacemaking by and for the people whose lives are touched by ongoing conflicts. While considering examples from around the world, this book specifically focuses on peacemaking in the Georgian-South Ossetian context. It tells the stories of individuals on both sides of the conflict, and explores why people choose to make peace, and how they work within their societies to encourage this. This book emphasizes theory built from practice and offers methodological guidance on learning from practice in the conflict resolution field. This book will be of much interest to students and practitioners of peacemaking, conflict resolution, South Caucasus politics and International Relations.
"This book examines the theory and practice of interactive peacemaking, centering the role of people in making peace. This book presents the theory and practice of peacemaking as found in contemporary processes globally. By putting people at the center of the analysis, it outlines the possibilities of peacemaking by and for the people whose lives are touched by ongoing conflicts. While considering examples from around the world, this book specifically focuses on peacemaking in the Georgian-South Ossetian context. It tells the stories of individuals on both sides of the conflict, and explores why people choose to make peace, and how they work within their societies to encourage this. This book emphasizes theory built from practice and offers methodological guidance on learning from practice in the conflict resolution field. This book will be of much interest to students and practitioners of peacemaking, conflict resolution, South Caucasus politics and International Relations"--
This book examines the theory and practice of interactive peacemaking, centering the role of people in making peace.The book presents the theory and practice of peacemaking as found in contemporary processes globally. By putting people at the center of the analysis, it outlines the possibilities of peacemaking by and for the people whose lives are touched by ongoing conflicts. While considering examples from around the world, this book specifically focuses on peacemaking in the Georgian-South Ossetian context. It tells the stories of individuals on both sides of the conflict, and explores why people choose to make peace, and how they work within their societies to encourage this. This book emphasizes theory built from practice and offers methodological guidance on learning from practice in the conflict resolution field.This book will be of much interest to students and practitioners of peacemaking, conflict resolution, South Caucasus politics and International Relations.
This book examines the theory and practice of interactive peacemaking, centering the role of people in making peace. The book presents the theory and practice of peacemaking as found in contemporary processes globally. By putting people at the center of the analysis, it outlines the possibilities of peacemaking by and for the people whose lives are touched by ongoing conflicts. While considering examples from around the world, this book specifically focuses on peacemaking in the Georgian-South Ossetian context. It tells the stories of individuals on both sides of the conflict, and explores why people choose to make peace, and how they work within their societies to encourage this. This book emphasizes theory built from practice and offers methodological guidance on learning from practice in the conflict resolution field. This book will be of much interest to students and practitioners of peacemaking, conflict resolution, South Caucasus politics and International Relations. ; OA Funder: George Mason University Foundation, Inc.
Abstract This article examines best practices in local ownership of Track Two diplomacy. Taking as a starting point the idea that best practices change over time as conflicts and social responses to them change, the article seeks out recent innovations and practices in Track Two diplomacy, focusing on practices of local ownership. A series of two reflective practice workshops with facilitators of Track Two processes offer insights on local ownership in current Track Two diplomacy. More in-depth examination of the Georgian-South Ossetian case illustrates an example of increasing local ownership developing over time during a ten year Track Two process. Together, the reflective practice workshops and the case study suggest team approaches to Track Two diplomacy so that insiders and outsiders work together as a team to facilitate, bringing the strengths of both insiders and outsiders to Track Two processes.
More than an individual emotion experienced by conflict resolution practitioners, compassion constitutes a primary norm of the field of peacebuilding. Three domains of peacebuilding practice are showcased: first, the human rights agenda of the United Nations, second, the practices of everyday peace, and third, the strategies among professionals of interactive conflict resolution. Motivated by the compassion‐related programs in these domains, we propose that peacebuilders develop strategies that are intended to foster compassion among the conflict parties. The notion of systemic compassion is introduced and illustrated with examples within current practice.
In: Political science quarterly: a nonpartisan journal devoted to the study and analysis of government, politics and international affairs ; PSQ, Band 137, Heft 3, S. 539-568
Few systematic studies of US uses of force treat the inherent attributes of presidents as the key causal factors; nonetheless, the fact that individual leaders matter is evident to the public, the media, and foreign policymakers in other countries. This study advances the development of First Image explanations of conflict by empirically investigating the relationship between presidential personality and the variation surrounding foreign policy decision making. The importance of this type of variance has been understudied in international relations, and the consistency of leaders' policy decisions has important strategic implications for interstate conflict. Relying on Big Five measures of US presidents' personality traits, we find that leaders who have a high tendency toward Excitement Seeking are more likely to use force to carry out their foreign policy objectives, while those who are more Open to Action exhibit a greater variance around their foreign policy decision making. In sum, the personality traits of individual leaders influence not only the choices they make, but the consistency of their choices, which has important consequences for US foreign policy. Adapted from the source document.
AbstractThis paper explores key lessons learned during the design and facilitation phases of a conflict resolution workshop with environmental activists in rural Appalachia. As these practice notes and analysis highlight, conflict resolution (CR) practitioners can support activists by engaging in robust preparation work in order to better understand how activists work together, how that work evolves over time, their frames for making sense of conflicts and new possibilities for collaboration. This work raises timely questions about the role of outside facilitator partiality in CR processes, especially when differences of power and marginalization within activist networks reveal fault lines that disrupt collaboration and trust.