Suchergebnisse

Intractable international conflicts and difficult or intractable family conflicts have much in common. Relationships are damaged or destroyed, escalation causes parties to become polarized and make bad decisions, communication is strained or nonexistent, and competition and coercion take the place of collaboration. Similarities also exist in the realm of solutions, and those caught in (or intervening in) difficult family conflicts can learn much from the strategies and tactics of international peacebuilders. This article describes eight steps that peacebuilders at both the family level and the international level can take to make very damaging conflicts more constructive.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:
Limiting escalation is important in both contexts.
Preventing or correcting misunderstandings is key to resolution in both contexts as well.
Be sure you are focusing on the real problem(s).
Get the facts straight (and agreed upon) before making agreements.
Healing past wrongs is important for long term stability.
Working both within and beyond the zone of possible agreement (ZOPA) is essential in both contexts.
Working to improve relationships helps all parties and improves the outcome.

AbstractConstructive confrontation is a strategy for approaching intractable conflicts that are not ripe for resolution. Developed in the context of large‐scale public policy and international conflicts, this approach parallels transformative mediation in several ways. Most important is an emphasis on empowerment and recognition (though constructive confrontation uses different terms) and a focus on constructive processes rather than resolution as the primary goal. This article describes constructive confrontation and compares it to transformative mediation, highlighting both similarities and differences.

AbstractThrough this essay and its accompanying commentaries, we offer a focal point for a wide‐ranging dialogue about how those with conflict‐related expertise might do more to contribute to efforts to slow, and ultimately reverse, the hyper‐polarization spiral now threatening so many developed democracies. In addition to exploring ways for promoting the more widespread utilization of the conflict field's existing insights and practices, we consider strategies for better dealing with the enormous scale and complexity of contemporary society‐wide conflict, and for countering powerful, bad‐faith actors who, for personal profit, are deliberately amplifying our deep divisions. We propose a "massively parallel" approach that seeks to cultivate large numbers of independent but mutually reinforcing projects each addressing particular aspects of hyper‐polarization in specific contexts.